OK, questions restated :
So you are going to emulate him?
Mea culpa. I confused you with baggageandfibs with whom I was already engaged. I meant his argument that this war is to distract from Epstein stuff and the other things he listed
And this is similary mangled being a reference to b&f's suggestions about Trump's motives
His advisors are not his voters
Ryan the only credit you are due in this long procession of guff is you are more honest as to what you are about, especially with yourself, then are many others drinking from the same well.
1. You inferred anti-semitism (tropes etc)
Well I'm not either, but I am in the same position as when you previously asked a similar question iirc. I would love to see the Iranian people oust their oppressors and for massive advances to regional peace with them out of the way. But like others, I fear another shitshow of the kind we are all used to by now.
Fairy nuff dude and sorry for the repeat question.
I said you were resorting to those tropes because you were. I didnt call you any names
And here you go again. It's a war not an academic exercise. They tried to hit a revolutionary guard building and hit a school adjacent to it. A horrific error of the kind that always happens in bombing campaigns.
But you don't, or at least you devote most of your attention in one direction. Whatever the follies of this campaign, it is going after the root cause of that cycle and of the regions ills: responsible for more carnage than any other since the Young Turks and possibly all others combined. But your focus is on a misdirected bomb, just as it was previously on Palestine despite their being a parallel thread devoted to that topic.
Well your argument seems to be that Trump is doing this for all kinds of self serving reasons, and you cite in support of that argument the fact that he made similar accusations of Obama. So are you emulating his approach? In which case are you suggesting he was right on Obama, because f not, why are you taking the same approach?
Whit? Plenty leaders have been killed in wars or as a result of wars
No eegie. Directly taken out by another country.
I will keep this short as I am sure the never ending pedantry applied to people's posts is extremely tedious for everyone else.
In a war. I suppose if you judge it to be definitive that he was killed by an american or israeli bomb rather than by their proxies in the theatre or the forces they unleashed (like Saddam or Gaddafi for instance) then maybe it's novel - though the Iranians were plotting to assasinate Trump first.
Dude honestly I'm not saying it to point score or go after Israel for nefarious reasons, it just looks to be a historic action by an aggressor country not done in 150 years. It is, by definition, an escalation like nothing any of us have ever seen in our lifetimes.
I don't think you are an anti semite but you might be picking up on tropes that have been mainstreamed by anti semites and are now pervasive.
It happens in all bombing campaigns. It's just that certain ones are wrapped up in medieval libels, disseminated by provocateurs and ingested by others.
OK, so your argument is that despite it's clear alignment with Trump's foreign policy, and despite him being given a pretext to enact it to its ultimate conclusion, this is in fact about pissing off his base to distract them from other things they are pissed about? And the evidence for this is his own conspiratorial posting about Obama?
I'm not convinced it is. America usually gets it's man, often at arms length, granted.
They are the bad guys which is why the Iranian strikes are retaliatory.
You're sounding like a cheerleader for the war criminal Netanyahu and his American puppet.
That is a stunning comment D. Those poor ickle mullahs.
Lot to take in here. This squib might go any which way and multiple factors at play - current continuation, immediate change through overthrow or return of the shah.
Hopefully but still seems a bit far fetched currently, a council of the supreme leaders allies has now taken over the reigns tonight, saying that the US has also launched fresh strikes so we'll see how long they'll last.
For sure. But there is also chat - emanating from the regime - that 50k out of 75k mosques in the country have closed over the last few years due to lack of attendance.
I googled the numbers after musing on it last night. It seems there are 350k active personnel in the regular army and 190k in the revolutionary guard, and I'm going to take a punt that the latter are somewhat more fanatical and committed fighters, and that they are loyal to the regime over country. There are also many hundreds of thousands of reservists.
A mob has attacked the US consulate in Pakistan. Won't be long before that sort of thing is happening in Europe. For good or for ill western foreign policy - or the European end of it anyway - is soon going to be constrained by domestic security concerns.
This is where the anti Muslim obsession becomes blinding. If you only see things in these terms then you don't see anything at all. You don't see the complex regional politics of the middle East- just religion. To reduce Britain and France not getting involved to an entirely bogus religious point is to be blind to the justifiable reasons for not getting entangled in another middle East conflict.
I'm not sure he was being entirely serious. But Labour's middle Eastern adventurism has indeed proved costly and it's good to see some circumspection from clergy and congregation this time around.
Not surprising really. The greens are following the Islamoleft template that brought the mullahs to power, and the left side of the alliance to the end of a rope.
Whats it about then?
Please sit comfortably. We are about to replace your viewpoint with a more suitable narrative. Process launching in 5, 4, 3....
You know fine well.
I don't know, tell me what someone who agrees that the war criminal Netanyahu and his USA lapdog are breaking international law by attacking Iran sounds like to you.